Hamas condemns bin Laden killing [Was: Gaza crowd of up to 100,000 chants "Death to America" at anti-peace rally]

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2010 2:52 PM GMT
    http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE69S2UN20101029

    Big rally by Islamic Jihad in Gaza, joined by Hamas
    By Nidal al-Mughrabi

    GAZA (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of supporters of the militant Islamic Jihad movement rallied in the streets of Gaza on Friday, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."

    Ramadan Shallah, the group's exiled chief in Damascus, sent a recorded message...:

    "Israel will not bring peace to the region, it will only bring war and destruction and therefore, the slogan of all should be that Israel must be wiped out of existence," said Shallah, who is on a United States wanted list.

    Senior leaders of the ruling Islamist group, Hamas, joined the open-air gathering, the largest for years in honour of Islamic Jihad with up to 100,000 attending according to its organisers.

    Hamas allowed the group to use city terrain it usually reserves exclusively for its own rallies, and Hamas forces provided security for the parade by its smaller rival.

    ...Islamic Jihad officials said Friday's turnout was a "referendum by the Palestinian people rejecting peace-making with Israel."

    ...Hamas leader Khalil Al-Hayya said it was time for unity in the face of Israel.

    "There is only the choice of Jihad and nothing else ... There is no more room to make bets, on the Americans or anyone else," said Hayya.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2010 9:33 PM GMT
    What makes this "anti-Palestine"?

    Especially given the glee you expressed regarding this in the other topic!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 1:14 AM GMT
    You didn't have glee when you expressed hope that Hamas might murder me?

    So you can't tell us what makes this thread "anti-Palestinian"?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 7:04 AM GMT
    So unable to tell us what makes this thread "anti-Palestinian", you seek to divert with personal attacks?


    I could similarly say that after everything Arabs have done to Jews over the past 2 generations (wars, violence, terrorism) not to mention over the last 1400 years, that one could never expect Jews to forgive Arabs. Indeed, my point would have much more legitimacy: at no point did Arabs seek to negotiate, compromise or peacefully coexist other than as the masters overlording the dhimmis. Yet the Palestinian Arab suffering these past 62 years has largely been self-inflicted precisely due to the rejection of negotiations, compromise and peaceful coexistence (both when they mistakenly thought they were the stronger party, and when they know they are the weaker party).

    I'll note that Germans and most Brits and Americans managed to put the war behind them after a few years and West Germany became an ally.

    If you actually had the interest of the Palestinian Arabs at heart, rather than your racist hate of Israel and any/all things Jewish, you'd advocate for peace. Yet here in this topic, faced with up to 100,000 Palestinian Arabs protesting against peace (sought by their PA leadership) you applaud them.

    Maybe it's their chants of "Death to America" that endears them to you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 7:14 PM GMT
    Pouncer saidPeople all over the world chant "Death to America" these days - often in much larger numbers than that. The Vietnamese used to do it - and were cheered on by students and protesters all over the United States and Great Britain.

    In case you didn't know, the Muslim World is onto us. They see our crocodile tears about the plight of the Iranians under the mullahs, yet they know we had only the greatest of respect for the infinitely worse genocidaire Shah who preceded them, and how we supported Saddam Hussein's mad attack on them in the 1980s, giving him all the support and atrocity weapons he needed to wreck their economy and kill them in the hundreds of thousands. They see our phony concern for the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, but they know only too well that that was only after Saddam had become a regional liability - beforehand he was a blue-eyed boy of the West, who we armed to the teeth and gave our satellites and maps to. They see the faux compassion for Gazans suffering under Hamas, yet they know that the atrocious Saudi oligarchs, who cut peoples' heads off and persecute women, have trillions of dollars invested in their best friend America's economy, and that they're always welcome at Buckingham Palace. They see our denunciation of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, yet they know we stand by the barbarian Islom Karimov of Uzbekistan - a tyrant who roasts his opponents in vats of boiling water - as a "staunch ally" in the war on terror. They see how we feigned sympathy for the occupied Kuwaitis in 1991, but they know that we lured Saddam into that venture, and that we dutifully re-installed their royal dictatorship after moving the Iraqis out. They know that we trained and funded Bin Laden and his terrorist allies - because he was fighting the Soviets and as far as America was concerned - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    America/the West has a shameful and two-faced policy in the Middle East. And yet we wonder why Muslims often turn to Bin Laden and the fundamentalists against the United States?


    Pouncer, do you actually believe these people can be civilized with logic and reason? They are like a wild ass. NOTHING will change the unfortunate and never-ending saga of hate and brainwashing that they will continue to pass on to their children and grandchildren. All we need to do is protect ourselves from it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2010 9:24 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    mocktwinkiePouncer, do you actually believe these people can be civilized with logic and reason? They are like a wild ass. NOTHING will change the unfortunate and never-ending saga of hate and brainwashing that they will continue to pass on to their children and grandchildren. All we need to do is protect ourselves from it.


    What do you mean by "these people"? Or that they're not "civilised"? Do you think they need to be civilized by white men like us?? Or do you think they were just born "uncivilized" due to their race or creed? Have a look at the murder rates, violent crime rates, rape statistics, anti-social behaviour levels, and the respect accorded to elders in the Arab World alone and compare it to Britain and America.

    You're not just "protecting" yourselves, you're setting other peoples' countries on fire, bombing people, supporting dictatorships, stealing their natural resources. You are 4% of the world's population, and yet you take 25% of the world's natural resources. You rampage around the world "regime changing" governments you don't like, you allow your corporations to outsource their labour so they can capitalize on indigent workers in third world countries, you pollute and damage our planet more than every other country in the world combined, you throw groups like the Kurds and the Palestinians under the bus with every foreign policy decision you make in the Middle East, you've supported terrorist groups in Iran, you support terrorist groups in Cuba and all over the Meso-American isthmus and the Southern Cone, and you support the corrupt kings and puppet presidents that leach off their people all over the Arab World.


    No, they aren't civilized, and if they want to get their crap together they will have to do it on their own because our "help" is obviously not working. They were out of control oppressing women, killing people for being gay, slaughtering each other etc before there was any "burning other peoples' countries on fire" or "bombing people" by the west -- They were doing all of it before "we" ever got there or ever waged war. As far as stealing natural resources, BULLCRAP.

    It's just as crazy as the fantasies perpetuated by some that the third world is in the condition they are because of colonization and it's simply untrue. Colonization was more costly for western civilizations than it was profitable for them and what they ended up accomplishing was influencing these countries to adopt a civilized government platform. The colonization of India by Britain is a great example.

    Perhaps you never realized that the people in the third world hired for low wages by corporations here wouldn't even have a job to begin with and would be starving and dying anyway. Can you honestly fool yourself into thinking that they would be "better off" without those jobs?

    There's no easy solution. Are you willing to give up your comforts? Why don't you be an example and be the first one to sell your computer so you can actually help these poor disenfranchised souls instead of sitting there enjoying a lifestyle that you know is made possible by other people being "taken advantage" of.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 12:32 AM GMT
    pouncer> [Saddam] was a blue-eyed boy of the West, who we armed to the teeth

    Reality: The Baath party was a Soviet client, having turned to them after the US refused to arm them in the late 1960s.

    pouncer> [Iranians see] how we supported Saddam Hussein's mad attack on them in the 1980s, giving him all the support and atrocity weapons he needed to wreck their economy and kill them in the hundreds of thousands.

    Again, Iraq was a client of the USSR at that time (which explains why their army was full of Soviet equipment, from tanks to fighter aircraft).

    That's the thing about people like pouncer who reverse the scientific method. They can always draw false premises from their wannabe-conclusions to support them - completely ignoring reality. pouncer could just as well have worked backward to Iran-Contra and argued the exact opposite (had he wanted to).

    Reality: the US gave some support to Iraq after Iran became the aggressor in the war and refused to end it when it gained the upper hand. As explained to me by an Iranian ambassador, this was an attempt to strengthen Iran's negotiating stance once a ceasefire was accepted. A goal they never achieved but on which they wasted not only hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but also teenage children used as human minesweepers.


    Getting back to the topic:

    If you actually had the interest of the Palestinian Arabs at heart, rather than your racist hate of Israel and any/all things Jewish, you'd advocate for peace. Yet here in this topic, faced with up to 100,000 Palestinian Arabs protesting against peace (sought by their PA leadership) you applaud them.

    pouncer> we wonder why Muslims often turn to Bin Laden and the fundamentalists against the United States?

    Isn't it curious how the US is now "we" for this shill?
    (Did he forget he was posing as a Brit?)

    Regardless, he's mired himself in another set of Pouncer Contradictions.

    PC1. Support for Bin Laden in the Muslim world has been steadily declining, as discussed in this topic:
    Who Speaks for Islam?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1090374

    PC2. Just yesterday, interviewed in Al-Hayat, Hamas' Interior Minister Fathi Hamad denied allegations that al-Qaida operatives were active in Gaza.

    PC3. At a time that the majority of Palestian Arabs is starting to support the Clinton compromise parameters... pouncer is backing the minority that violently opposes it and attempting to rationalize and justify them.

    This to the detriment of the majority of the Palestinian Arabs, who to him are nothing more than pawns in his war against Israel and all things Jewish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 12:36 AM GMT
    I wonder if Israel ever had a crowd of tens of thousands of Israelis shouting "Death to Palestine." Nope, never.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 2:06 AM GMT
    Let see... U.S. gives Israel all of its economic and military aid against Palestinian civilians, supporting Israel illegal settlements and Israeli apartheid.

    Have you ever ask yourself what cause America to have more enemies? ISRAEL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 2:07 AM GMT
    JAKEBENSON saidI wonder if Israel ever had a crowd of tens of thousands of Israelis shouting "Death to Palestine." Nope, never.


    Not true, Israelis did say "death to Palestinians or death to Arabs." You don't hear that in the U.S. Media.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 2:21 AM GMT
    It is anti-Palestinian thread because 100% of your posts take negative view of the Palestinian people. This thread telling people that Palestinians are bad people or evil people. Is that what you are trying to say or misleading people here?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 2:39 AM GMT
    Can you blame them? We have given ignorant and uncritical support to Israel. Who can blame the Palestinians for being frustrated with the US?

    I have a chant for ya...

    GIVE THE PALESTINANS AN EVEN BREAK...AND A NATION!
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 03, 2010 3:41 AM GMT
    Caslon16000 saidCan you blame them? We have given ignorant and uncritical support to Israel. Who can blame the Palestinians for being frustrated with the US?

    I have a chant for ya...

    GIVE THE PALESTINANS AN EVEN BREAK...AND A NATION!





    They were offered a nation, but they turned it down.
    They will accept nothing but the extermination of Israel.
    They have earned their isolation.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 3:52 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Pouncer, do you actually believe these people can be civilized with logic and reason? They are like a wild ass. NOTHING will change the unfortunate and never-ending saga of hate and brainwashing that they will continue to pass on to their children and grandchildren. All we need to do is protect ourselves from it.


    Yes. They are just like the Tea Party!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 4:50 AM GMT
    pouncer> [Saddam] was a blue-eyed boy of the West, who we armed to the teeth

    The Baath party was a Soviet client, having turned to them after the US refused to arm them in the late 1960s.

    p> Funny then that the US was the country that financed and organized the Ba'athist coup of 1963

    Madrassah logic? You do realize that the late 1960s was after 1963, right?
    The US lost favor with the Baathists precisely because - contrary to your nonsense - it refused to arm them.


    Iraq was a client of the USSR at that time (which explains why their army was full of Soviet equipment, from tanks to fighter aircraft).

    p> "Soviet client" indicates that you're looking at the Iran-Iraq conflict through a Cold War lens.

    More sheer idiocy. Contrary to your propaganda lie, the Iraqi army was not built up by either the US or the West but by the USSR. That is a fact of the 1970s and making stupid assertions about my perspective doesn't change any of the facts.

    In typical fashion, pouncer spams on about irrelevancies, but he can't back up the assertion that the US armed Saddam.
    Indeed, he drones on and on precisely to divert from that error.
    Sadly with the same flawed methodolgy of inventing "facts" from his warped model.


    Note how pouncer also flees from the on-topic discussion:

    If you actually had the interest of the Palestinian Arabs at heart, rather than your racist hate of Israel and any/all things Jewish, you'd advocate for peace. Yet here in this topic, faced with up to 100,000 Palestinian Arabs protesting against peace (sought by their PA leadership) you applaud them.

    pouncer> we wonder why Muslims often turn to Bin Laden and the fundamentalists against the United States?

    Isn't it curious how the US is now "we" for this shill?
    (Did he forget he was posing as a Brit?)

    Regardless, he's mired himself in another set of Pouncer Contradictions.

    PC1. Support for Bin Laden in the Muslim world has been steadily declining, as discussed in this topic:
    Who Speaks for Islam?


    p> ?


    PC2. Just yesterday, interviewed in Al-Hayat, Hamas' Interior Minister Fathi Hamad denied allegations that al-Qaida operatives were active in Gaza.

    p> ?


    PC3. At a time that the majority of Palestian Arabs is starting to support the Clinton compromise parameters... pouncer is backing the minority that violently opposes it and attempting to rationalize and justify them.

    This to the detriment of the majority of the Palestinian Arabs, who to him are nothing more than pawns in his war against Israel and all things Jewish.


    p> ?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 4:24 PM GMT
    This topic isn't about Iraq or Iran, but I venture that you'll continue to spam your nonsense - as you always do - precisely to avoid the topic.

    The point I contested has been proven. While the US did provide support to Iraq in the mid-to-late 1980s, the army used to attack Iran was built by the USSR (not the "West" or the US as pouncer idiotically claimed). This support came after Iran refused to end the war (at a cost of hundreds of thousands of its own people, including children used as human mine sweepers) and became the aggressor.

    I'm sure you'll continue to babble off-topic, but it'll just prove how hysterical you are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 4:45 PM GMT
    sxydrkhair> Your pal Caesarea4 is an Al Nakba denier.

    I don't deny the "Nakba".
    I simply point out that it was self-inflicted.


    sxydrkhair> Israel never offered a nation for Palestinians.

    Webster didn't say "Israel offered" but "they were offered", but both are true.

    In 1947, Israel accepted the UN partition compromise - which offered a 2nd Arab state in historic Palestine.

    Between 1949-1967, the disputed territories were in Arab hands. Why did Israel then need to offer a state? Why didn't the Arabs do so? Why wasn't there Palestinian Arab terrorism against the Egyptian and Jordanian "occupiers"?

    In 1967, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 which established the "land for peace" formula and guaranteed "the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area". Yet the Palestinians rejected this (until, supposedly, accepting it in 1993).

    In 1978, they refused to attend President Carter's Camp David Summit.

    In 2000, Arafat walked out of President Clinton's Camp David Summit.

    In 2001, Arafat torched the peace process and rejected the Clinton compromise parameters which would have established an independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (including Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem).

    In 2008, Olmert offered 98.5% of the disputed territories - which PA President Abbas called a "waste of time".


    sxydrkhair> Palestinian nation is 1967 border including East Jerusalem as their capital.

    These are the borders you want, but have no legal basis (especially regarding eastern Jerusalem given its acquisition by aggressive use of force during the Arab invasion of 1948 ). The 1949 Armistice Agreement lines (i.e. the pre-1967 border) were explicitly not political borders but temporary ceasefire lines.


    sxydrkhair> Palestinians are defending themselves

    Blowing up civilian buses, markets, cafes, nightclubs, etc., is not "defense".

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 5:23 PM GMT
    Pouncer saidI'm sorry, but you're way out of step. Before and during the onset of the colonies, WE were oppressing our women and executing (yes executing) our gay people. Only the rich could vote, and we delegated all our work to our slaves, and sent our children down the mines to earn their keep.

    You are lucky to live in America because you enjoy a standard minimum wage, you are protected by charter laws and poor laws established centuries ago, and you can get handouts from the government any time you want to sit around and be a deadbeat.

    You have NO IDEA what slave labour is. You have NO IDEA what living in a third world country is like. And you have the audacity to speak about the Raj?? More people died in India during the British Raj than died in China during both of Mao's "great leaps forward"!!! The British Raj was the worst thing to ever happen to India!! All we accomplished was to solidify their religious divisions by playing the Muslims and Hindus constantly against each other, use their army to help defend us during two world wars, and then amputate their state into two pieces before leaving by popular demand.

    Colonization can lead to prosperity only if that colonization ends on (relatively) good terms. Zimbabwe was colonized and is now - as a direct consequence - a mess. South Africa is the same. The Congo is the same. Iran is the same. Iraq is the same. Northern Ireland is the same. Much of the Arab World is the same. And I can tell that you've never visited India, because you'd know that the first thing you'd want to do if you were to find yourself poor in India would be to crawl up and die. India is ruled by a ruling elite called the "caste". If you're not one of them you're either in the mills, down the mines, or on the street.

    Very little of what I own, including my computer, is a product of third world labour. I buy fairtrade, I boycott dozens of companies on principle, and I even take the time to make a lot of my things myself. I always take great care to trace everything back to where it was made, indeed I could out-scrutinize a kosher butcher on some products.


    South Africa is falling apart because the country was "given" to the "majority" to run, Zimbabwe has destroyed itself by persecuting and taking away farmland from the educated westerners who have the knowledge and experience that's vital to their food supply. By doing this they are starving their own people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 6:20 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidColonization was more costly for western civilizations than it was profitable for them and what they ended up accomplishing was influencing these countries to adopt a civilized government platform. The colonization of India by Britain is a great example.



    PFFFFF

    LMAO!!!

    Tell that to the OIC and the the WIC... the WIC traded the slaves with Africa (a business they were running at a loss, yes, obviously)..

    tell that to the Catholic church of spain which is RIFE with artifacts made of melted Mayan, Aztec and Inca gold

    Tell that to the queen of England whose largest jewels are from india

    Tell that to the Netherlands who avoided bankruptcy thanks to Indonesian colonisation

    O wow, and the Asians and middle easterners, who had empires spanning back farther than the Romans, adopted a civilised platform thanks to European colonisations?

    Lol, yeah right...

    good luck in trying to spread such crock in the world at large
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 6:23 PM GMT
    IanCT said
    JAKEBENSON saidI wonder if Israel ever had a crowd of tens of thousands of Israelis shouting "Death to Palestine." Nope, never.


    Not true, Israelis did say "death to Palestinians or death to Arabs." You don't hear that in the U.S. Media.


    Im pretty sure they must have... ive turned on internet radio in the US and find myself shockd at the open talks of "we should bomb this and that country" quite openly... in fact, Ive seen the jokes on RJ itself about bombing Iran several times over...

    And yeah, well Im perplexed and hurt, but what shuold I do, retaliate with a "bomb North America" post?

    *feels like crying*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 03, 2010 7:01 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    mocktwinkieSouth Africa is falling apart because the country was "given" to the "majority" to run, Zimbabwe has destroyed itself by persecuting and taking away farmland from the educated westerners who have the knowledge and experience that's vital to their food supply. By doing this they are starving their own people.


    More ignorance. South Africa was a failed state with an economy in the toilet because the white minority there decided to carry on with the Apartheid regime in the face of UN economic sanctions, an international trade boycott and an oil embargo. Before that South Africa had never realized its full capacity as a potential African superpower because it repressed and segregated the vast majority - almost the entirety - of its workforce. As restrictions on black people were lifted, South Africa's economy gradually made gains.

    Zimbabwe was formerly a British colony called Southern Rhodesia, but by the time the Brits realized they had no right to be occupying another people's land, a white settler minority led by an individual called Ian Smith declared Rhodesian independence and immediately brought back the days of white colonial rule. After suffering the economic consequences of this from Great Britain, he went on to lose the Bush War - a liberation struggle waged by Robert Mugabe and the black majority. Unfortunately, Mugabe would later turn from liberation hero into tyrannical despot, with Joshua Nkomo and the progressive voices of the movement quickly marginalized. Since then Mugabe has yes done a lot of bad for Zimbabwe.
    But as Gandhi once observed - all people have the right to choose ineffective self rule over the occupation of a benign power.


    Sorry, you're completely misinformed and brainwashed by western PC, white-guilt media (You're in the UK, why am I not surprised?). After apartheid south africa fell apart and it continues to go down the tube, not because apartheid was good but because the majority decided to get "revenge" for past wrongs and ended up driving away all of the knowledgeable, intelligent and educated people who were keeping the country stable. If they weren't driven away they were stolen from or blackmailed to be the "brains" behind the operations while front-men with no education or experience became the "faces" . SA is not thriving, it is a cesspool and a hotbed of corruption, systematic racial discrimination and crime and leads the world with the highest crime rate ever since it was taken over by the majority. Believe me, I know people who live there who cannot sleep at night without taking sleeping pills because of the gunfire all night long. If a minority run farm is being pillaged the police will purposely not answer the calls and allow them to be slaughtered. Furthermore, the current majority that occupies South Africa were themselves immigrants from northern Africa who slaughtered the aboriginals living there before them long before the colonists came and brought civilization along with their wrong-doings. If it weren't for the colonists SA wouldn't even be what it is today or even have remotely the opportunity to have a governmental infrastructure. So if you want to start a "give it back to the original people" contest you aren't going to find any easy answer.

    As far as zimbabwe, they have a choice, either work together with the farmers or starve their own people. So far they have chosen starvation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 1:29 AM GMT
    NOW BACK TO THIS TOPIC:

    If you actually had the interest of the Palestinian Arabs at heart, rather than your racist hate of Israel and any/all things Jewish, you'd advocate for peace. Yet here in this topic, faced with up to 100,000 Palestinian Arabs protesting against peace (sought by their PA leadership) you applaud them.

    pouncer> we wonder why Muslims often turn to Bin Laden and the fundamentalists against the United States?

    He's mired himself in another set of Pouncer Contradictions.

    PC1. Support for Bin Laden in the Muslim world has been steadily declining, as discussed in this topic:
    Who Speaks for Islam?


    p> ???


    PC2. Just Monday, interviewed in Al-Hayat, Hamas' Interior Minister Fathi Hamad denied allegations that al-Qaida operatives were active in Gaza.

    p> ???


    PC3. At a time that the majority of Palestian Arabs is starting to support the Clinton compromise parameters... pouncer is backing the minority that violently opposes it and attempting to rationalize and justify them.

    This to the detriment of the majority of the Palestinian Arabs, who to him are nothing more than pawns in his war against Israel and all things Jewish.


    p> ???

    No wonder pouncer would rather divert with discussions about everything else but the topic!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 04, 2010 5:34 PM GMT
    sxydrkhair> Palestinians are defending themselves

    Blowing up civilian buses, markets, cafes, nightclubs, etc., is not "defense".

    SDH> ?


    sxydrkhair> Israel never offered a nation for Palestinians.

    Webster didn't say "Israel offered" but "they were offered", but both are true.

    SDH> ?


    In 1947, Israel accepted the UN partition compromise - which offered a 2nd Arab state in historic Palestine.

    SDH> The United Nations Partition compromise didn't offer two Arab states

    That's not what I said. Trans-Jordanian Palestine, today known as Jordan, was the first Arab state in historic Palestine.
    The UN partition compromse would have established a 2nd Arab state.


    SDH> it violated the rights of the majority of the non-Jews

    To the contrary, the partition compromise guaranteed the rights of non-Arabs living in the Arab state and of non-Jews living in the Jewish state.


    SDH> Jews at that time were a minority

    Jews were a majority in the area allocated to the Jewish state.
    Indeed, you say that Jews were 1/3rd of the population and yet they ended up with only 12% of historic Palestine.


    SDH> Jews owned only 5.8-7% at various times.

    Jews owned 8.6% of the area allocated to the Jewish state.
    Resident Arabs owned only 3.3%.
    (Do we really have to go over this, again?!)

    In any event, we agree that the Jews accepted the UN partition compromise while the Arabs violently rejected it.


    Between 1949-1967, the disputed territories were in Arab hands. Why did Israel then need to offer a state? Why didn't the Arabs do so?

    SDH> ?


    Why wasn't there Palestinian Arab terrorism against the Egyptian and Jordanian "occupiers"?

    SDH> The PLO didn't exist until 1964

    Exactly, and it was established not to fight for Palestinian Arab independence in the territories but to attack Israel.


    SDH> didn't treat Palestinians like 2nd class citizens

    You didn't know that Gaza was under a 20 year curfew?
    Jordan granted the Arabs living in its so-called "West Bank" Jordanian citizenship, but Gazans didn't have Egyptian citizenship.
    So they weren't even 2nd class citizens.


    SDH> no walls, no fences, no roadblocks, no home demolitions, no checkpoints

    At that time, there was none of those from Israel, either.
    These were the response to Palestinian Arab terrorism.


    SDH> What makes you think the Palestinians are terrorists?

    People who attack innocent civilians, blow up school busses, cafes, markets, restaurants, discos, etc., are terrorists.
    Do you disagree?!


    SDH> Palestinians that are fighting for justice against an illegal Israeli occupation are terrorists?

    How does blowing up innocent civilians - which is terrorism - advance "justice"?!

    And how can it be that Palestinian Arab terrorists were doing so prior to 1967 when the "occupation" began?
    (Not only isn't it an "occupation", but it is legal. UNSCR 242 authorizes Israel to administer the territories until peace is made.)


    In 1967, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 which established the "land for peace" formula and guaranteed "the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area". Yet the Palestinians rejected this (until, supposedly, accepting it in 1993).

    SDH> The PLO rejected Resolution 242 in 1968, because they believed resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region.

    What? How would making peace do that?


    SDH> The change in US attitudes to Resolution 242 came with Nixon/Kissinger. Big surprise there.

    US President Lyndon Johnson> We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors involved.


    In 1978, they refused to attend President Carter's Camp David Summit.

    SDH> Carter's Camp David Summit was between Israel and Egypt. It had nothing to do with the Palestinians.

    ROTFL. It could have had they been interested in joining the peace conference.
    That's the point. The rejected doing so.


    In 2000, Arafat walked out of President Clinton's Camp David Summit.

    SDH> Does East Jerusalem ring a bell?

    Under the Clinton compromise parameters, the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem would have become part of the Palestinian Arab state.


    SDH> Plus, Israel still retained control of Palestinian airspace, territorial water, and borders, legally making it still under Israeli control.

    Wrong. Israel wanted guarantees of overflight rights (hint: Israel would have become so narrow that when the winds were blowing the wrong way planes wouldn't have been able to take-off from Ben Gurion airport) and control over the eastern border - but only for a transition period of 7 years.


    SDH> Another reason was the completely unaddressed Palestinian refugee problem.

    The Clinton compromise parameters would have established the so-called "right of return" to the nascent Palestinian Arab state and provided a $30 Billion fund for compensation and resettlement.


    SDH> How about the eight disconnected Bantustans in the West Bank?

    Absolutely no truth to that. The territory would have been CONTIGUOUS.


    SDH> Thank God Arafat refused to budge

    ROTFL. So much for negotiations in good faith and compromise.
    ("Not budging" is the opposite of accepting compromise!)


    In 2001, Arafat torched the peace process and rejected the Clinton compromise parameters which would have established an independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state on a net 97% of the disputed territories (including Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem).

    SDH> ?


    In 2008, Olmert offered 98.5% of the disputed territories - which PA President Abbas called a "waste of time".

    SDH> ?


    sxydrkhair> Palestinian nation is 1967 border including East Jerusalem as their capital.

    These are the borders you want, but have no legal basis (especially regarding eastern Jerusalem given its acquisition by aggressive use of force during the Arab invasion of 1948 ). The 1949 Armistice Agreement lines (i.e. the pre-1967 border) were explicitly not political borders but temporary ceasefire lines.

    SDH> ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2010 12:19 AM GMT
    Hamas leader in Gaza vows group will never recognize Israel
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-leader-in-gaza-vows-group-will-never-recognize-israel-1.330593

    Hamas will never recognize Israel, Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh said Tuesday at a rally to mark the 23rd anniversary of the militant group's founding.

    "We say it with confidence as we said it five years ago when we formed our government, and we say it today: We will never recognize Israel," Haniyeh told a crowd in Gaza City numbering tens of thousands.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2010 1:25 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidHamas leader in Gaza vows group will never recognize Israel
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-leader-in-gaza-vows-group-will-never-recognize-israel-1.330593

    Hamas will never recognize Israel, Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh said Tuesday at a rally to mark the 23rd anniversary of the militant group's founding.

    "We say it with confidence as we said it five years ago when we formed our government, and we say it today: We will never recognize Israel," Haniyeh told a crowd in Gaza City numbering tens of thousands.



    Well I'll be damned !!! That Gaza Leader might have been one next to the School or the Aide building that the ZIONISTs had bombed in their last attack on Gaza, while blocking ambulances and he may have had to sit across a table from a ZIONIST PROPAGANDIST like our Ceaserea4, perhaps anyone dealing with such things might be tempted to make such a statement if indeed he did. No let me take this opportunity to ask again, WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO ZIONISM ?? DO YOU GET PAID TO PLAGUE US WITH THIS STUFF ?